The assertion was made-over and over again-that DE cannot possibly be effective for anything because it is completely inert. That is clearly not the case. DE is not inert. It has effects on microbes, parasites, and toxins. It has been observed to have benefiticial effects on chickens and humans. Therefore, it is plausible for it to have beneficial effects in a wide range of diseases.

You guys are now trying to move the goalposts. Im not arguing it should be FDA-approved, or that these uses are proven. Far from it. I have merely proven their plausibility. And that shopuld be plenty good enough to change the nature of the debate about DE.

And if you guys are logical and follow the scientific method it should mean that you no longer mock and deride people who say it has been helpful for them. Your attitude should be curiosity, not hostility.

You have not proven plausibility. In fact, I don't even know what that statement means.
The link you posted shows that D.E. may be beneficial for chickens to treat for aflatoxicosis. And that's fine. But that does not mean that you've "proven it's plausible" that it can effect other diseases. Effecting one illness does not mean it's plausible something will effect a different illness.
This is a bit like posting a link to a guy saying he saw funny lights in the sky and then claiming that you have 'proven the plausibility of extraterrestrial visitors.'

Now, D.E. may well be beneficial for aflatoxicosis in chickens. That is not established, but possible. That has nothing to do with the claims made about humans using it as some snake oil Miracle Cure.
And if you're going to complain that pointing this out is hostility- Yes, there IS hostility directed toward snake oil salesmanship, myths, lies, deceptive practices and false claims. Which is how it should be.

It says clearly that there was no difference between D.E. fed chickens and the control group. The only difference observed was that those infected with aflotoxins had a few percent increase in productivity when their feed included D.E. Now, the few percent is significant, don't get me wrong...

Additionally (bold and underline by me):

An approach to the problem has been the usege (sic) of non-nutritive and inert adsorbents in the diet to bind AF and reduce the absorption of AF from the gastrointestinal tract. Since the early 1990s, experiments with adsorbents such zeolites and aluminosilicates have proven to be successful, but high inclusion rates and possible potential interactions with feed nutrients are causes for concern (Dwyer et al 1997, Phillips 1999, Rosa et al 2001). Also, possible dioxin contamination may be a risk factor for using of natural clays in case of forest and trash fire near the source of them (Abad et al 2002, Feidler 2002, Trckova et al 2004, Arikan et al 2009).

Again, this does not support, in any fashion, the claims that have been made about D.E. in this thread- or elsewhere.
What it does establish is that D.E. is an inert additive- which was why they were interested in it in this case- as an absorbent that won't have an adverse effect on the animal (human or chicken). So I agree that saying that a substance that is inert can have no health effects whatsoever may be in error. But again, this does not support the claims that have been made, nor does it "prove plausibility" as you say anymore than one can show a paper that demonstrates a possible link between U.V. light and germ killing makes it plausible that U.V. light can cure skin cancer.

I'm curious. That is why I keep asking these moronic spammers where the research is that justifies their claims.

You have done nothing to advance the debate. We already know that it is used for various things in livestock. The research I have seen indicates that there is very little evidence it has any benefit there. I can find no evidence that it has any benefits in humans. Can you?

Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore

Promoter of hard tissue regeneration
US 20100143488 A1
Abstract
The object of the present invention is to provide a hard-tissue regeneration promoter, a pharmaceutical composition, a food composition, a food, etc., useful for regeneration of an impaired or defective hard tissue, which can be prepared in low production and labor costs. That is, regeneration of a hard tissue in an impaired or defective area can be promoted by causing such an agent or composition to contain diatomaceous earth and administering the resulting agent/composition beneath the periosteum in the vicinity of the impaired or defective hard tissue or orally administering the same.

It is a published patent application. There are many applications made for inventions that prove to be useless. So this is valueless as a reference.

More positively, reading this correspondence and recalling my experience in the oil industry, I understand that diatomaceous earth, due to its surface properties, has definitely the ability to microfilter, and possibly to adsorb, some materials. John Galt referred to this possibility earlier in the thread, though the point seems not to have been taken up.

Regarding blood lipids etc, so-called "soluble fibre" in the diet is said to act by binding to bile acids in the gut and causing a higher proportion of fatty material and cholesterol derivatives to pass through to excretion without absorption into the body, thereby leading to lower levels in the blood. That's why we are exhorted to eat porridge and so forth. These bile acids are detergents, so they will form colloidal dispersions with fat. I can easily imagine that colloidal particles may well be taken up by the pores of diatomaceous earth and similarly bound and excreted, rather than absorbed, in an analogous manner. So an effect on blood lipids etc seems quite plausible to me.

But extending this to repair of injured tissue, or curing backache, sounds like quackery.

Furthermore, who says diatomaceous earth does not also bind to other, beneficial - even vital - colloidal particles in the gut, causing vitamin or other deficiencies? Or it may block pores in, or adhere to, vital tissues. Do we know it doesn't? And then, finely divided silicates, such as the fibrous mineral asbestos, are known to cause cancer, in spite of their chemical inertness.

It seems to me a very dangerous idea to start eating this stuff before its long-term non-toxicity in humans is well-established.

Clearly there are two uses of "inert": 1) chemically inert and 2) biologically inert. You guys are getting them confused, though of course they are related. I was using "inert" in the biological sense. Im not interested in a semantics and definition discussion, so please drop this nonsense about "inert" and whether or not i understand it.

Yes I know its not a patent. I am a professional patent agent. As a reference its useful for what it discloses: evidence that DE improves bone and tooth healing. And the evidence for that is largely unrelated to its patentability (though utility is required). In other words, even if its not issued, that doesnt mean the evidence is not valid (though of course its not peer-reviewed).

So, once again, I see huge effort being made here to avoid comments on the merits of the science. To distract and change the subject.

The study on chickens PROVES that its effective, by normal medical scientific standards. its a controlled study that obtained significant results. Thats PROOF, as its defined.

And it is connected with human diseases, because human diseases are often caused by infections and toxins that plausibly are affected by DE. Humans get gut infections, just like chickens. And gut infections are implicated in arthritits, for example, one of the things that people claim DE is effective for.

Its not correct to say that silica is non-nutritive. Silica is an essential nutrient.

Its true thqat DE is hazardous to inhale, like many ceramic powders. Advocates of DE recognize this fact and warn about the dangers of inhalation. And yes, its likely that DE will bind nutrients, and possibly cause nutrient deficiencies.

The binding nature of DE does not explain its effects on triglycerides, IMO. Also, in the human cholesterol study, cholesterol remained low weeks after DE was stopped, and HDL INCREASED. This is also not explained by mere cholesterol binding.

"Four weeks after intake of diatomaceous earth was stopped, serum cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides still remained low and also the increase of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol became significant (p<0.05). Diatomaceous earth, a bioproduct, is capable of reducing blood cholesterol and positively influencing lipid metabolism in humans. Placebo-controlled studies will be necessary to confirm our findings."

So, I have done nothing to advance the debate? I posted the only scientific references on this thread, that clearly prove some of the assertions made here false, and that doesnt change anything? Seriously? LOL

You guys have a serious problem with thinking rationally and scientifically. You are not very good at it.

The problem here is that science is being treated like its a religion, with dogma and unquestionable canons. But thats not what science is. Science is a method of inquiry, a way to think about the world. Feynman has a famous quote about this: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts".

In the case of DE, there is good evidence that it binds toxins, kills pathogens and even has some beneficial effects on human blood lipids and triglycerides. You should correct your thinking to fit the evidence.

And BTW, nobody here should claim they "already knew that" about DE, the animal studies or effects on cholesterol. There is no evidence for that!

Clearly there are two uses of "inert": 1) chemically inert and 2) biologically inert. You guys are getting them confused, though of course they are related. I was using "inert" in the biological sense. Im not interested in a semantics and definition discussion, so please drop this nonsense about "inert" and whether or not i understand it.

Yes I know its not a patent. I am a professional patent agent. As a reference its useful for what it discloses: evidence that DE improves bone and tooth healing. And the evidence for that is largely unrelated to its patentability (though utility is required). In other words, even if its not issued, that doesnt mean the evidence is not valid (though of course its not peer-reviewed).

So, once again, I see huge effort being made here to avoid comments on the merits of the science. To distract and change the subject.

The study on chickens PROVES that its effective, by normal medical scientific standards. its a controlled study that obtained significant results. Thats PROOF, as its defined.

And it is connected with human diseases, because human diseases are often caused by infections and toxins that plausibly are affected by DE. Humans get gut infections, just like chickens. And gut infections are implicated in arthritits, for example, one of the things that people claim DE is effective for.

Its not correct to say that silica is non-nutritive. Silica is an essential nutrient.

Its true thqat DE is hazardous to inhale, like many ceramic powders. Advocates of DE recognize this fact and warn about the dangers of inhalation. And yes, its likely that DE will bind nutrients, and possibly cause nutrient deficiencies.

The binding nature of DE does not explain its effects on triglycerides, IMO. Also, in the human cholesterol study, cholesterol remained low weeks after DE was stopped, and HDL INCREASED. This is also not explained by mere cholesterol binding.

"Four weeks after intake of diatomaceous earth was stopped, serum cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides still remained low and also the increase of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol became significant (p<0.05). Diatomaceous earth, a bioproduct, is capable of reducing blood cholesterol and positively influencing lipid metabolism in humans. Placebo-controlled studies will be necessary to confirm our findings."

So, I have done nothing to advance the debate? I posted the only scientific references on this thread, that clearly prove some of the assertions made here false, and that doesnt change anything? Seriously? LOL

You guys have a serious problem with thinking rationally and scientifically. You are not very good at it.

The problem here is that science is being treated like its a religion, with dogma and unquestionable canons. But thats not what science is. Science is a method of inquiry, a way to think about the world. Feynman has a famous quote about this: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts".

In the case of DE, there is good evidence that it binds toxins, kills pathogens and even has some beneficial effects on human blood lipids and triglycerides. You should correct your thinking to fit the evidence.

And BTW, nobody here should claim they "already knew that" about DE, the animal studies or effects on cholesterol. There is no evidence for that!

If you're a patent agent, all I can say is I wonder if you have the necessary precision in your thought and communication to make a good one. After all, you did call this document a patent, when it isn't.

As for the rest, I hope you will acknowledge that I at least have been open-minded enough to recognise that the surface properties of this material can make it biologically active in a number of ways, as has John Galt.

"If you're a patent agent, all I can say is I wonder if you have the necessary precision in your thought and communication to make a good one. After all, you did call this document a patent, when it isn't."

Distraction and focusing on trivial errors. Thats a sure sign you are losing the argument.

"If you're a patent agent, all I can say is I wonder if you have the necessary precision in your thought and communication to make a good one. After all, you did call this document a patent, when it isn't."

Distraction and focusing on trivial errors. Thats a sure sign you are losing the argument.

I don't think there is on this forum. Are the papers not available on the web somewhere? A lot of stuff from the journals can be found that way.

But what do they cover? I see for example that the use of binders for mycotoxins in animal feed is well established, for example here:Myco-Binder PLUS | Dairy Direct, so the Iranian paper you mentioned earlier on using DE for this purpose in broiler chicks seems to be following an established path. By the way I note the commercial product in my example includes an undisclosed "mineral" binding component.

Yes I know its not a patent. I am a professional patent agent. As a reference its useful for what it discloses: evidence that DE improves bone and tooth healing. And the evidence for that is largely unrelated to its patentability (though utility is required). In other words, even if its not issued, that doesnt mean the evidence is not valid (though of course its not peer-reviewed).

As a patent agent, you must know that there is nothing that guarantees any degree of correctness in the patent application.

So, I have done nothing to advance the debate? I posted the only scientific references on this thread, that clearly prove some of the assertions made here false, and that doesnt change anything?

You may be the first to post a scientific reference on this thread. (I really can't be bothered to check.) But you certainly are not the first to post scientific references on the many threads on the subject that have been created. Oddly, no one ever creates a thread to share scientific information. They only create threads to tell us how DE brought their dead pet back to life, regrew an amputated limb and similar stories. And of course, they often include a "helpful" link to where it can be bought.

And BTW, nobody here should claim they "already knew that" about DE, the animal studies or effects on cholesterol. There is no evidence for that!

Well, some of us have looked at the research. I haven't yet seen anything convincing. (I haven't read the article you linked to yet. Later...)

Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore

Yes I know its not a patent. I am a professional patent agent. As a reference its useful for what it discloses: evidence that DE improves bone and tooth healing. And the evidence for that is largely unrelated to its patentability (though utility is required). In other words, even if its not issued, that doesnt mean the evidence is not valid (though of course its not peer-reviewed).

As a patent agent, you must know that there is nothing that guarantees any degree of correctness in the patent application.

So, I have done nothing to advance the debate? I posted the only scientific references on this thread, that clearly prove some of the assertions made here false, and that doesnt change anything?

You may be the first to post a scientific reference on this thread. (I really can't be bothered to check.) But you certainly are not the first to post scientific references on the many threads on the subject that have been created. Oddly, no one ever creates a thread to share scientific information. They only create threads to tell us how DE brought their dead pet back to life, regrew an amputated limb and similar stories. And of course, they often include a "helpful" link to where it can be bought.

And BTW, nobody here should claim they "already knew that" about DE, the animal studies or effects on cholesterol. There is no evidence for that!

Well, some of us have looked at the research. I haven't yet seen anything convincing. (I haven't read the article you linked to yet. Later...)

Strange, while I share your scepticism about the wilder claims made for this stuff, it does seem possible for it to have some biological activity, whether positive or negative, when ingested. I'd be interested to see what Ddanimal actually can cite. Binding to bile acids or lipid colloids seems conceivable and I see there are commercial animal feed additives that bind to mycotoxins (from mould), improving health and growth. So, to me, it all depends on exactly what is being claimed here.

"If you're a patent agent, all I can say is I wonder if you have the necessary precision in your thought and communication to make a good one. After all, you did call this document a patent, when it isn't."

Distraction and focusing on trivial errors. Thats a sure sign you are losing the argument.

So is winning your focus or is accuracy in scientific claims your goal?

Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.

For this to be a science forum... some of the comments here... I think are some of the stupidest, most ignorant comments I've read regarding DE. Why don't you try it and then give your opinion. Try FOOD GRADE ONLY, and consume as directed (orally with water) DON'T INHALE IT! And try it for a few months... don't just go by your one-week or one-time experience of it.

For this to be a science forum... some of the comments here... I think are some of the stupidest, most ignorant comments I've read regarding DE. Why don't you try it and then give your opinion. Try FOOD GRADE ONLY, and consume as directed (orally with water) DON'T INHALE IT! And try it for a few months... don't just go by your one-week or one-time experience of it.

Would you clarify why an unsupervised, individual experiment, lacking independent verification and no opportunity for statistical rigour would represent (as you seem to imply) a scientific approach?

For this to be a science forum... some of the comments here... I think are some of the stupidest, most ignorant comments I've read regarding DE. Why don't you try it and then give your opinion. Try FOOD GRADE ONLY, and consume as directed (orally with water) DON'T INHALE IT! And try it for a few months... don't just go by your one-week or one-time experience of it.

There certainly are a lot of stupid and ignorant comments about it, I agree. The question is, from whom?

"Try it and see" is a fatuous suggestion. What would you measure? How significant would a single data point be? How could be sure what you were doing was safe?

To be honest it is too good to be true, how is something that passes through the digestive tract and does not come in contact with the blood system at any point affecting your blood pressure? Or to put it another way, how have you ruled out placebo effects?

As if the digestive tract is totally separate from everything else! I suffer from trigeminal autonomic cephalgia. It took me five years of suffering to finally discover that I could abort the attacks by taking an enema! And that if I strictly controlled certain aspects of my diet, I could reduce the frequency and severity of the attacks. Change your gut and you can change a whole lot of other things in the body. But... the Western MDs I saw all those years never thought about this kind of relationship. They wanted to shove nasty anti-seizure meds down my throat to "treat" the head and face pain... Drugs which many others complain do nothing but make them unable to drive or count their change.

To be honest it is too good to be true, how is something that passes through the digestive tract and does not come in contact with the blood system at any point affecting your blood pressure? Or to put it another way, how have you ruled out placebo effects?

As if the digestive tract is totally separate from everything else! I suffer from trigeminal autonomic cephalgia. It took me five years of suffering to finally discover that I could abort the attacks by taking an enema! And that if I strictly controlled certain aspects of my diet, I could reduce the frequency and severity of the attacks. Change your gut and you can change a whole lot of other things in the body. But... the Western MDs I saw all those years never thought about this kind of relationship. They wanted to shove nasty anti-seizure meds down my throat to "treat" the head and face pain... Drugs which many others complain do nothing but make them unable to drive or count their change.

Changing the food you eat can definitely alter the chemicals that enter your body through absorption. Diatomatious earth will not do much and will not do the majority of the things that have been claimed in this thread.

I stumbled on this forum looking for more information on the stuff and I find myself dumbfounded by the obtuse comments I read from people claiming to have scientific minds. What I read so far did nothing to further my knowledge on the subject but instead made me realize how dogmatic some people have become in the name of science.

I'm not a scientist, patent agent, health enthusiast or have any vested interest in fossil shell flour, DE, kieselguhr or whatever you choose to call it. At this point I cannot pronounce myself for or against the claimed merits of using this substance as a human nutritional supplement for lack of empirical evidence and personal experience. There are however enough empirical testimony and correlative theories to pique my interest. I was hoping to find more hypothesis for or against its use but instead I ended up sifting through an arrogant barrage of opposition based on nothing more than science flavored prejudice and fallacious rhetoric.

Lacking a scientific background, I'm obviously missing something. I wonder if Alfred Nobel considered kieselguhr as just sand. Maybe dietitians should advocate the removal of some fibers in diets because they are metabolically inert. Surely Marie Curie and Thomas Edison should have abstained from unsupervised individual experiments lacking independent verification and no opportunity for statistical rigor. It seems some scientists here hold the belief that you can debunk a testimony or theory on the simple premise that no double blind medical study was published in a peer reviewed journal on the subject.

Had I known that all I needed to obtain intellectual certitude on any subject was to own a diploma and waive the word science like a bible, I would have studied harder.

I'm sorry for the sarcastic tone of my post but I cannot shake the anger generated by the sanctimonious posturing of some comments. I can only wish that those comments were generated by a hasty emotional reflex to oppose anything resembling the claims of snake oil salesmen. Hopefully, someone will be able to acknowledge that the lack of empirical evidence only proves that no certifiable conclusions can be drawn on the subject at this time.

That being said, I would welcome any hypothesis for or against the use of diatomaceous earth as a human nutritional supplement but I will not entertain a debate on semantics or assumptions.

Last edited by Lazy Jester; September 25th, 2013 at 10:43 PM.
Reason: Orthographic error, English is my second language

I stumbled on this forum looking for more information on the stuff and I find myself dumbfounded by the obtuse comments I read from people claiming to have scientific minds. What I read so far did nothing to further my knowledge on the subject but instead made me realize how dogmatic some people have become in the name of science.

I'm not a scientist, patent agent, health enthusiast or have any vested interest in fossil shell flour, DE, kieselguhr or whatever you choose to call it. At this point I cannot pronounce myself for or against the claimed merits of using this substance as a human nutritional supplement for lack of empirical evidence and personal experience. There are however enough empirical testimony and correlative theories to pique my interest. I was hoping to find more hypothesis for or against its use but instead I ended up sifting through an arrogant barrage of opposition based on nothing more than science flavored prejudice and fallacious rhetoric.

Lacking a scientific background, I'm obviously missing something. I wonder if Alfred Nobel considered kieselguhr as just sand. Maybe dietitians should advocate the removal of some fibers in diets because they are metabolically inert. Surely Marie Curie and Thomas Edison should have abstained from unsupervised individual experiments lacking independent verification and no opportunity for statistical rigor. It seems some scientists here hold the belief that you can debunk a testimony or theory on the simple premise that no double blind medical study was published in a peer reviewed journal on the subject.

Had I known that all I needed to obtain intellectual certitude on any subject was to own a diploma and waive the word science like a bible, I would have studied harder.

I'm sorry for the sarcastic tone of my post but I cannot shake the anger generated by the sanctimonious posturing of some comments. I can only wish that those comments were generated by a hasty emotional reflex to oppose anything resembling the claims of snake oil salesmen. Hopefully, someone will be able to acknowledge that the lack of empirical evidence only proves that no certifiable conclusions can be drawn on the subject at this time.

That being said, I would welcome any hypothesis for or against the use of diatomaceous earth as a human nutritional supplement but I will not entertain a debate on semantics or assumptions.

Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977

Posts

12,596

September 26th, 2013, 02:21 AM

Originally Posted by Lazy Jester

I stumbled on this forum looking for more information on the stuff and I find myself dumbfounded by the obtuse comments I read from people claiming to have scientific minds. What I read so far did nothing to further my knowledge on the subject but instead made me realize how dogmatic some people have become in the name of science.

I'm not a scientist, patent agent, health enthusiast or have any vested interest in fossil shell flour, DE, kieselguhr or whatever you choose to call it. At this point I cannot pronounce myself for or against the claimed merits of using this substance as a human nutritional supplement for lack of empirical evidence and personal experience. There are however enough empirical testimony and correlative theories to pique my interest. I was hoping to find more hypothesis for or against its use but instead I ended up sifting through an arrogant barrage of opposition based on nothing more than science flavored prejudice and fallacious rhetoric.

Lacking a scientific background, I'm obviously missing something. I wonder if Alfred Nobel considered kieselguhr as just sand. Maybe dietitians should advocate the removal of some fibers in diets because they are metabolically inert. Surely Marie Curie and Thomas Edison should have abstained from unsupervised individual experiments lacking independent verification and no opportunity for statistical rigor. It seems some scientists here hold the belief that you can debunk a testimony or theory on the simple premise that no double blind medical study was published in a peer reviewed journal on the subject.

Had I known that all I needed to obtain intellectual certitude on any subject was to own a diploma and waive the word science like a bible, I would have studied harder.

I'm sorry for the sarcastic tone of my post but I cannot shake the anger generated by the sanctimonious posturing of some comments. I can only wish that those comments were generated by a hasty emotional reflex to oppose anything resembling the claims of snake oil salesmen. Hopefully, someone will be able to acknowledge that the lack of empirical evidence only proves that no certifiable conclusions can be drawn on the subject at this time.

That being said, I would welcome any hypothesis for or against the use of diatomaceous earth as a human nutritional supplement but I will not entertain a debate on semantics or assumptions.

That being said, I would welcome any hypothesis for or against the use of diatomaceous earth as a human nutritional supplement but I will not entertain a debate on semantics or assumptions.

There is no scientific evidence of any benefit.

None of those promoting it in this thread and others have produced any evidence beyond their personal experience which could easily be explained in other well-understood ways (placebo effect, confirmation bias, etc.)

With no evidence for any benefit, I see no reason to even consider it.

Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore

Lazy Jester it is probable that you will interpret this post as hostile. That is not its intention. This is a science forum and I am striving to achieve objectivity. My questions and observations are based upon that intent. I hope through these observations and questions to cause you to reconsider your provisional conclusions. (If they are not provisional then they are, consequently, not scientific.)

Originally Posted by Lazy Jester

I stumbled on this forum looking for more information on the stuff and I find myself dumbfounded by the obtuse comments I read from people claiming to have scientific minds.

Obtuse? I felt the majority, if not all the comments, were very direct and clear cut. If you meant obtuse could you mention a couple of examples so I can better understand your thinking. If you did not mean obtuse, what did you mean?

Originally Posted by Lazy Jester

What I read so far did nothing to further my knowledge on the subject but instead made me realize how dogmatic some people have become in the name of science.

I did not see any examples of that. Could you point me to one or two cases and include a justification of why you believe the post to dogmatic.

Originally Posted by Lazy Jester

I'm not a scientist, patent agent, health enthusiast or have any vested interest in fossil shell flour, DE, kieselguhr or whatever you choose to call it. At this point I cannot pronounce myself for or against the claimed merits of using this substance as a human nutritional supplement for lack of empirical evidence and personal experience. There are however enough empirical testimony and correlative theories to pique my interest.

My ignorance in the matter is probably greater than yours and my disinterest and order of magnitude beyond. Could you give a couple of examples of the empirical testimony you consider to be valuable.

Is any of this empirical material anything more than anecdotal? If it is not, do you fully appreciate the demonstrable lack of value, from a scientific perspective, of anecdote and eye-witness testimony?

Pointing this out, as several members have done implicilty, is not dogmatic, it is a responsible scientific response to misinterpretations and misunderstandings of the scientific method.

Originally Posted by Lazy Jester

I was hoping to find more hypothesis for or against its use but instead I ended up sifting through an arrogant barrage of opposition based on nothing more than science flavored prejudice and fallacious rhetoric.

Science flavoured prejudice and fallacious rhetoric is a nice turn of phrase, but it semantic content is pretty low. The only prejudice I see is prejudice against unsubstantiated testimony. Such prejudice is a key element of the scientific method and therefore is necessary, mandatory and welcome.

If you think there are other instances of inappropriate prejudice then I ask you to provide a couple of examples together with an explanation justifiying your assessment of them.

Originally Posted by Lazy Jester

Lacking a scientific background, I'm obviously missing something. I wonder if Alfred Nobel considered kieselguhr as just sand.

That seems a rather silly comparison. Nobel had a vision of what was required to make his nitroglycerin comparatively safe. Kieselguhr had characteristics that seemed likely to make that possible. It worked. It worked demonstrably and repeatedly and could be readily subjected to independent verification.

People have had a vision of how DE could be beneficial. So far they have not demonstrated that it works. There has been no independent verification. Indeed, all we have are stories and no sscientific data whatsoever. If I mistaken, please supply such data.

So, in the absence of anything meaningful to support the efficacy of DE there is no reason to believe it is of any value whatsoever. I can understand your interest being piqued. In the absence of evidence I can think of no good reason why that interest would remain.

Originally Posted by Lazy Jester

. Maybe dietitians should advocate the removal of some fibers in diets because they are metabolically inert.

Again, a very silly and unscientific comparison. There are a host of studies, from many perspectives, that have demonstrated repeatedly and consistently the value of fibers in our diets. Such is not the case for DE.

Originally Posted by Lazy Jester

Surely Marie Curie and Thomas Edison should have abstained from unsupervised individual experiments lacking independent verification and no opportunity for statistical rigor.

Marie Curie reported her results in the normal way, to the scientific community, where they could then be independently verified. And Edison invented things that worked. DE does not work. I would be happy to corrected on this by the presentation of solid evidence. So far that has been totally lacking in this thread.

Originally Posted by Lazy Jester

. It seems some scientists here hold the belief that you can debunk a testimony or theory on the simple premise that no double blind medical study was published in a peer reviewed journal on the subject.

In the absence of such a study, when ample opportunity has been available to the proponents of the system to conduct one, there is no sane reason to pay any heed to anecdotal evidence.

As a side note, on a science forum, you tend to lose credibility by misusing the word theory. In this context you meant hypothesis, or more likely speculation. And that is not semantics, that's frigging the precision that is required in scientific discussions.

Originally Posted by Lazy Jester

Had I known that all I needed to obtain intellectual certitude on any subject was to own a diploma and waive the word science like a bible, I would have studied harder.

No one is waving their diplomas about. One of the most rigorous thinkers on this forum lacks a degree of any kind, yet he is highly respected. Why? He argues concisely. He requires that any speculation, hypothesis or theory match observation. He demands that observation be objectively replicable. In other words, you've erected a straw man argument here.

Originally Posted by Lazy Jester

I'm sorry for the sarcastic tone of my post but I cannot shake the anger generated by the sanctimonious posturing of some comments.

Sanctimonious posturing? could it be contagious? Aggressively attacking loose, ill-informed, biased thinking is not sanctimonious. Taking a strong position for science and against self delusion is not posturing.

Originally Posted by Lazy Jester

Hopefully, someone will be able to acknowledge that the lack of empirical evidence only proves that no certifiable conclusions can be drawn on the subject at this time.

No. The lack of evidence means we can conclude that there is almost certainly nothing in the speculative proposals as to its efficacy.

It seems some scientists here hold the belief that you can debunk a testimony or theory on the simple premise that no double blind medical study was published in a peer reviewed journal on the subject.

I am responding to this portion because I feel it was directed at me due to my previous comment.

What you're saying is absolutely true. I will not accept a medical conclusion from someone who is A) Not involved in the medical field in any way and B) Referencing personal experience without any medical studies to back up that experience.

Would you take an untested anesthetic from your doctor purely on the bases of, "I use it on myself and I'm fine"?

This is a science forum. If you have something to present, you must follow proper methodology. If you do not have a proper scientific study which supports the argument that DE cures this or fixes that then, in my opinion, you have nothing. This is not arrogance. This is a requirement of every scientist in every field. It is a standard. We require it because without it, science would be a hodgepodge of metaphysicists and holistic dietitians peddling their nonsense to the masses.

"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin

Surely Marie Curie and Thomas Edison should have abstained from unsupervised individual experiments lacking independent verification and no opportunity for statistical rigor.

Thomas Edison was a technologist, therefore the "independent verification" was the fact that his light bulbs, for example, worked, could be seen to work and sold. Where is the evidence that DE works in the extraordinary way claimed by the posters here?

Marie Curie was a scientist therefore her work was duplicated and subject to critical review. Where is the critically reviewed evidence that DE works in the extraordinary way claimed by the posters here?

It seems some scientists here hold the belief that you can debunk a testimony or theory on the simple premise that no double blind medical study was published in a peer reviewed journal on the subject.

No, but with no solid evidence to support the extraordinary claims made, I see no reason to accept them as anything other than opinion, faith, anecdote, self-delusion, placebo, ....

Had I known that all I needed to obtain intellectual certitude on any subject was to own a diploma and waive the word science like a bible, I would have studied harder.

Don't be so childish.

I'm sorry for the sarcastic tone of my post but I cannot shake the anger generated by the sanctimonious posturing of some comments.

To begin, let me apologize for the tone of my first post. It was condescending, presumptuous and inflammatory by design. As much as I pride myself as being an objective thinker, it is obvious that my judgement was clouded by anger when I wrote that post. Kicking a wasp's nest into this room as an introduction was not the best way to start a civilized conversation. How can I be taken seriously if I exhibit the same trait I was denouncing? I do not subscribe to the expression “I'm only responsible for what i say not for what you understand” and will now attempt to clarify my interpretation and opinion of what I read.

Since my original post was attacking the assumed mindset of this forum I will primarily respond to Mr. Galt's post. I am doing this for practical reasons since Mr. Galt is a moderator here; I feel that he is best suited to represent the spirit of this forum.

Mr. Galt, I appreciate your comments and I did not see them as hostile but rather very astute. I'm afraid my use of the word obtuse was an incorrect direct translation. "Obtus" in French only shares the same definition in mathematics, the other definitions relate to a lack of finesse or being hidebound. Thank you for drawing my attention to it. I did not mean to belittle the intelligence of the regular members of this forum but rather express my concern at their seemingly rigid approach and perceived unwillingness to consider different points of view.

I may have misconstrued some comments but the prevalent affirmation here seemed to be that unless something is thoroughly tested by a scientific method it cannot possibly have any practical or beneficial use and should therefore be ignored. I consider such an affirmation dogmatic in nature. My opinion here will be strongly contested but claiming that something with no scientific value has no value whatsoever is somewhat presumptuous but considering the enormous amount of irrelevant information out there I can understand the filtering reflex.

My interest in DE is motivated by curiosity. I was looking for a non-toxic pesticide and landed on an article about DE and how some people used it as a food supplement. The idea that something used to make dynamite and pesticides could also be used as a “body cleansing supplement” seemed odd and I wanted to see if there was any type of scientific explanations for or against its use. But I digress, to answer your question about what I called testimonial evidence; the only information I have is anecdotal. I’d rather call it testimonial but I now understand that anecdotal has a more concise meaning in science. For a layman like me, anecdotal has a pejorative meaning implying that the information is more fiction than fact. You can understand that someone’s testimony being automatically referred to as a tall tale would be perceived as very insulting.

At this point, I find it important to express my position on the subject: I do not have enough information to pronounce myself for or against the use of diatomaceous earth as a supplement for human consumption. But I find the mechanical pesticide characteristic of amorphous silica and its absorbent qualities very interesting and I couldn't help myself thinking; what if the “enthusiastic” testimony of the advocates of the stuff was the result of something more than a placebo. I'm no poster boy for healthy living habits and I'm very skeptical of homeopathic “cure all” remedies but in this case something seemed worth investigating.

The following explanations refer to my clumsy attempts to ridicule comments I perceived as weak rhetoric: My reference to Alfred Nobel’s use of kieselguhr was aimed at views stating that amorphous silica was just dirt and as such had no application. The removal of some fibers comment was aimed at claims stating that since DE was metabolically inert it couldn't possibly have any health benefits. The reference to Marie Curie and Thomas Edison was aimed to demonstrate that self experimentation can be of value. The diploma and waiving the word science comment was to address comments similar to “if you understood science” with the intent to belittle someone’s opinion without explaining the scientific method. The double blind medical study comment was to show that the same lack of research used to denounce claims of something being beneficial cannot be used to prove that it is necessarily harmful or useless. Again, I sincerely apologize for the tone of those comments. I should have addressed those rhetorical issues individually and rationally instead of assuming ill intent.

I still maintain that the lack of empirical evidence only proves that no certifiable conclusions can be drawn on the subject at this time. But I will concede that had there been any extensive research on the subject, the lack of evidence would allow us to conclude that there is almost certainly nothing in the speculative proposals as to its efficacy.

In conclusion, what got “my panties in a knot” was my perception of apparent inflexible conclusions expressed by some and their seemingly dismissive and somewhat condescending demeanor. As you so eloquently stated in regards to conclusions: “If they are not provisional then they are, consequently, not scientific”. I now suspect that the provisional aspect of conclusions expressed by many, if not stated, may have been implicit. I am still no further ahead in my search for a potential explanation to the claimed merits of diatomaceous earth as a supplement for human consumption other that mass induced hysteria. At the very least the exchange left me with a better understanding of the scientific method and its language.

To begin, let me apologize for the tone of my first post. It was condescending, presumptuous and inflammatory by design. As much as I pride myself as being an objective thinker, it is obvious that my judgement was clouded by anger when I wrote that post.

It's interesting how few people are able to express this.

Here's something for you to consider: There are a lot of quack medicines available. Homeopathy being the most glaring.

The reason other critical thinkers get annoyed with the claims is that people are not educated in medicine can easily be suckered in by snake oil salesmanship.

Standing up against this is important for many of us.

Now, is it impossible that D.E. could have a beneficial effect? No. In fact, several of us have commented that it may have mild complimentary benefits. It is, however, chemically inert. So while it may have an indirect benefit, there is also still known chemistry.

To be clear, I'm not personally upset by this topic because I adamantly believe DE has no effects. What upsets me is people who claim that eating sand cured their diabetes, thus, there is somehow scientific merit to DE as a health food.

It's on the same level as someone coming here and saying, "I saw Bigfoot, so Bigfoot must be real." This is a science forum and that isn't science.

My thoughts on Diatomaceous Earth.
1. It's fossilized microbes that had calcareous or silicion based shells to protect them Those shells have spikes and all sorts of sharp points. When small critters like fleas, ticks and ants move over them it's like walking across broken glass for us, it cuts through their exoskeleton and they 'bleed' to death.
2. It's safe for grain and animal feed because a person or animal will not consume enough DE in any single serving for it to do harm. Because we too have cells and some of them will be punctured by DE as it goes through the gut - but we have billions of cells. Parasites in our intestines don't have that many to lose so they are more at risk.
3. DE is 'safe' to the extent that it causes Less Harm than alternative solutions for grain storage. As noted in #2 above we can afford some small amount of damage to cells in the intestines.
4. BUT: Continual ingestion of DE increases the damage to the intestine lining. The feeling of energy some people report is because their body is firing up to repair the damage being caused. It's like the energy people report feeling after donating blood.
5. If you're taking a TBSP or more of DE a day as someone seems to be - make an appointment with a gut doctor and get a colonoscopy. Don't tell the doc you're doing DE and see what he reports. If it's magical then he'll say you've got a great colon, if it's not - he'll (or she) wonder what the crap you're doing.
6. Basically you're taking ground glass orally when you swallow DE, I wouldn't do that too damn often. But if I were selling it as a health cure I'd be glossing over that part and focusing on the 'good feeling' you get after you have been using it for a while.
7. Cured diabetes? Maybe, short term. The reported benefit from gastric bypass surgery seems to be that the surgery itself forced the body to expend energy repairing the damage from the surgery. Once that healed, most people got back on the diabetic track. DE is probably doing the same - causing the body to expend energy and so using up sugars in the body.

I should restate - these are my THOUGHTS on DE. I'm not a Dr., didn't play one on TV or at recess. These are the things that popped into my head while thinking about various postings on this topic.

make an appointment with a gut doctor and get a colonoscopy. Don't tell the doc you're doing DE and see what he reports. If it's magical then he'll say you've got a great colon, if it's not - he'll (or she) wonder what the crap you're doing.

I realize no one here wants to hear any kind of testimonial on DE at this point, but I do have a question I'm hoping this forum might help me sort out.

This is slightly embarrassing but I had a parasite for a couple weeks. I was extremely itchy (on my bum) and had initially thought it was due to bad hygiene and that it would go away. After the issue got worse and didn't go away I saw a doctor. My doctor explained it was most likely a parasite, I had to give him a stool sample and was told it would take 2-3 days to verify.

In the meantime my roommate had some DE and told me that it could potentially destroy the parasites. I am very skeptical of any kind of pseudo-science natural cures but I was itching something awful. I figured Food-Grade meant it was safe to eat (after reading these forums I'm not so sure how safe it is to ingest) Looking back I wish I had done some more research as I am not sure of the safety of DE for ingestion.

By the next evening however (the itching only happens at night), the itching had completely stopped. It was the first night of relief in several weeks. I continued to take DE (diluted in water) for two more days. I eventually received confirmation that I did have a parasite and was prescribed Albendazole. I ended up not filling the prescription as I no longer had symptoms. The symptoms have not returned, and I haven't taken DE since (especially after finding there could be potential damage)

I'm not really sure if the DE actually worked, or maybe they just went away on there own. Or possibly I am experiencing the placebo effect, I did really want it to work after all. Does anyone here know if it is at all possible to combat parasites with a placebo? I certainly wish there were more studies done on this matter.

Interesting, if unpleasant, experience. You are right to have reservations about what may have occured. The truth is you will probably never be able to be sure why the parasites went away. You are also correct that it would need some proper research to determine whether DE could have such a beneficial effect. Your remains as an interesting anecdote with little medical/scientific value. I do find a report like yours, which is loaded with your own scepticism, to be much more convincing than those coming from people who claim things like "it is clear the DE killed the parasites".

I realize no one here wants to hear any kind of testimonial on DE at this point, but I do have a question I'm hoping this forum might help me sort out.

This is slightly embarrassing but I had a parasite for a couple weeks. I was extremely itchy (on my bum) and had initially thought it was due to bad hygiene and that it would go away. After the issue got worse and didn't go away I saw a doctor. My doctor explained it was most likely a parasite, I had to give him a stool sample and was told it would take 2-3 days to verify.

In the meantime my roommate had some DE and told me that it could potentially destroy the parasites. I am very skeptical of any kind of pseudo-science natural cures but I was itching something awful. I figured Food-Grade meant it was safe to eat (after reading these forums I'm not so sure how safe it is to ingest) Looking back I wish I had done some more research as I am not sure of the safety of DE for ingestion.

By the next evening however (the itching only happens at night), the itching had completely stopped. It was the first night of relief in several weeks. I continued to take DE (diluted in water) for two more days. I eventually received confirmation that I did have a parasite and was prescribed Albendazole. I ended up not filling the prescription as I no longer had symptoms. The symptoms have not returned, and I haven't taken DE since (especially after finding there could be potential damage)

I'm not really sure if the DE actually worked, or maybe they just went away on there own. Or possibly I am experiencing the placebo effect, I did really want it to work after all. Does anyone here know if it is at all possible to combat parasites with a placebo? I certainly wish there were more studies done on this matter.

It sounds like you were infected with pinworm. Most adults have a resistance to the infection, but can still become infected if exposed to it. Do you ever come into contact with children? That's usually where adults get exposed to it. For an adult it's usually an itchy rear end for a couple of weeks and then it's over. So your timing was impeccable with the DE. I wouldn't read to much into it's healing abilities based on a timing coincidence.

It "MAY" have been the DE. I suspect that short term DE does kill gut parasites but it probably doesn't kill them all, or their eggs. I'm skeptical because the change happened so quickly. Wait some reasonable amount of time (6 months?) and get a follow up exam to make sure that you don't still have a low level infestation. The itching may have been a sign of <AHEM> overcrowding, maybe the parasites were shedding eggs and cysts of themselves and they are back at an 'acceptable' (to them) level. Or maybe that night of binge drinking after the jalapeno contest was too much for them and they cleared out. (I just made that up dear readers CHRISMAYBE didn't really do that.)
So if you are clear, yippee and perhaps it really was DE. I just worry about people using it on an ongoing basis as a preventative. Please don't do that.

I have a LOT of experience with DE. I use it a whole lot and here are my personal observations:

1.) It excels as an insect repellent (in big enough quantities) and a killer (in small enough quantities)...Otherwise if you use it, and I have a lot effectively if you apply it liberally insects tend to avoid it, but sparsely and they will walk over it and it will kill them.
2.) It significantly helped in my battle against roach and flea infestations, there were no other environmental factors that changed "of note".
3.) I spread it lightly under cracks and all around the edge of my basement, after doing so I noticed a significant difference in the number of crawling insects (DAMN STINKBUGS AND THEIR FLYING!)
4.) It brought my dead grandmother back to life
5.) I have used it to worm my pets, they have not had issues with internal pests (to a harmful degree) since I started using it, although they did before. This has not been a controlled study or anything, just saying anecdotally.
6.) For some reason if you get bitten by insects, rubbing plantaine on the bites really seems to help with irritation (I thought it was placebo with a friend that suggested it, and perhaps it is even with me, but I was quite skeptic)
7.) If you haven't realized I have interjected sarcastic comments, then perhaps you need to re-evaluate the way you look at the world.
8.) IT HAS BEEN A MIRACLE in my greenhouse, along the edges of the greenhouse, it has worked wonders in reducing insect issues.
9.) Finally, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone to use for anything other than insect control as that has been the one area I have observed it definitively making a huge difference.
10.) Except in the case of cancer or flesh-eating diseases. Obviously it solves all of them.
11.) DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING A SELLER SAYS ABOUT THEIR PRODUCT! SALESMEN LIE! WHY? PEOPLE WANT MONEY! (a disclaimer: everyone lies, and those they say don't lie to themselves)
12.) Some of you would have to see enough peer-reviewed literature on sex before you would consider using your sexual organs.

So what you are telling me is that DE "could" cure me of some of my social anxiety as well as some of the relational tension I have with specific ex's or ex-inlaws? Assuming I can convince them to willfully consume mass quantities of this stuff on a regular basis?

Now I see where Cogito's pic of the devious racoon would come into play here.

So what you are telling me is that DE "could" cure me of some of my social anxiety as well as some of the relational tension I have with specific ex's or ex-inlaws? Assuming I can convince them to willfully consume mass quantities of this stuff on a regular basis?

Now I see where Cogito's pic of the devious racoon would come into play here.

Geez, where have you been, of course it will. I prefer cyanide in such cases however, it tends to have very high problem solving qualities with pesky relatives.

So what you are telling me is that DE "could" cure me of some of my social anxiety as well as some of the relational tension I have with specific ex's or ex-inlaws? Assuming I can convince them to willfully consume mass quantities of this stuff on a regular basis?

Now I see where Cogito's pic of the devious racoon would come into play here.

Geez, where have you been, of course it will. I prefer cyanide in such cases however, it tends to have very high problem solving qualities with pesky relatives.

on a serious note, I don't always know when sarcasm is being used. I know it won't cure any human ailments but were you kidding as well about the insect repellant? and how about rats? We cleared a huge pile of cut branches and brush from the property and suddenly we are seeing rats. apparently they had been nesting and we took that from them. And the little ratstards think we owe them residence in our house now. We want to stop them before they come in. Will DE stop them. We don't want dead ones in our walls, but we want to repell them from the house before they come in. So far we have only seen them running on power lines and along the back fence. But with winter coming they will try to come indoors soon.

Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.

So what you are telling me is that DE "could" cure me of some of my social anxiety as well as some of the relational tension I have with specific ex's or ex-inlaws? Assuming I can convince them to willfully consume mass quantities of this stuff on a regular basis?

Now I see where Cogito's pic of the devious racoon would come into play here.

Geez, where have you been, of course it will. I prefer cyanide in such cases however, it tends to have very high problem solving qualities with pesky relatives.

on a serious note, I don't always know when sarcasm is being used. I know it won't cure any human ailments but were you kidding as well about the insect repellant? and how about rats? We cleared a huge pile of cut branches and brush from the property and suddenly we are seeing rats. apparently they had been nesting and we took that from them. And the little ratstards think we owe them residence in our house now. We want to stop them before they come in. Will DE stop them. We don't want dead ones in our walls, but we want to repell them from the house before they come in. So far we have only seen them running on power lines and along the back fence. But with winter coming they will try to come indoors soon.

I am not kidding about the insect repellent . It works quite well, but keep in mind that it can be easily swept or blown away as it is in a powdered form. THe other upside to using it for perimeter insect control is, if you have pets it is non-toxic or at least much less toxic (given enough I suppose even water can cause ill effects (Radio station contest - Cookeville TN or Crossville one can't remember). I really don't think it will help you with rats at all, but you could get a cat. Unfortunately the only cure all to rats is to seal up all holes (which rats can get into terribly small ones). I had a lot of problems with rats in a country cabin I lived in. I tried mothballs, DECON traps, peppermint oil...cat worked the best for me in the end. She used to drop them in an old SS milking can like a present. In my experience there the best things to do was:

Seal up cracks and holes (steel wool works well)
Keep a clean house, keep food sources away, and unavailable. Keeping an eye on water sources is also important, rats want to be close to a water source.
When handling traps use latex gloves, and keep traps in places where it is harder to keep food stored away.

Keep your bbq grills clean and plastic lids on trash cans.

Much like roaches one of the best things is to keep a clean house, and keep food sources away. Let them find your neighbors house instead.

Keeping your yard up helps as well, tall weeds bushes that are thick and close to the ground all offer good nesting places.

Stay away from all the money making repellents, in my experience they do not work well. I have seen rats in attics of mothballs (and this is what a lot of repellents use), I've seen them eat peppermints (get caught in a trap with it).

I find peanut butter to be a better bait than cheese ime.

Once again none of these are controlled studies but my own experience living in the country.

So what you are telling me is that DE "could" cure me of some of my social anxiety as well as some of the relational tension I have with specific ex's or ex-inlaws? Assuming I can convince them to willfully consume mass quantities of this stuff on a regular basis?

Now I see where Cogito's pic of the devious racoon would come into play here.

Geez, where have you been, of course it will. I prefer cyanide in such cases however, it tends to have very high problem solving qualities with pesky relatives.

on a serious note, I don't always know when sarcasm is being used. I know it won't cure any human ailments but were you kidding as well about the insect repellant? and how about rats? We cleared a huge pile of cut branches and brush from the property and suddenly we are seeing rats. apparently they had been nesting and we took that from them. And the little ratstards think we owe them residence in our house now. We want to stop them before they come in. Will DE stop them. We don't want dead ones in our walls, but we want to repell them from the house before they come in. So far we have only seen them running on power lines and along the back fence. But with winter coming they will try to come indoors soon.

I am not kidding about the insect repellent . It works quite well, but keep in mind that it can be easily swept or blown away as it is in a powdered form. THe other upside to using it for perimeter insect control is, if you have pets it is non-toxic or at least much less toxic (given enough I suppose even water can cause ill effects (Radio station contest - Cookeville TN or Crossville one can't remember). I really don't think it will help you with rats at all, but you could get a cat. Unfortunately the only cure all to rats is to seal up all holes (which rats can get into terribly small ones). I had a lot of problems with rats in a country cabin I lived in. I tried mothballs, DECON traps, peppermint oil...cat worked the best for me in the end. She used to drop them in an old SS milking can like a present. In my experience there the best things to do was:

Seal up cracks and holes (steel wool works well)
Keep a clean house, keep food sources away, and unavailable. Keeping an eye on water sources is also important, rats want to be close to a water source.
When handling traps use latex gloves, and keep traps in places where it is harder to keep food stored away.

Keep your bbq grills clean and plastic lids on trash cans.

Much like roaches one of the best things is to keep a clean house, and keep food sources away. Let them find your neighbors house instead.

Keeping your yard up helps as well, tall weeds bushes that are thick and close to the ground all offer good nesting places.

Stay away from all the money making repellents, in my experience they do not work well. I have seen rats in attics of mothballs (and this is what a lot of repellents use), I've seen them eat peppermints (get caught in a trap with it).

I find peanut butter to be a better bait than cheese ime.

Once again none of these are controlled studies but my own experience living in the country.

I used to use peanut butter on mouse traps because the mice were pulling the cheese chunks off and escaping without triggering the trap, but they have to sit there and lick he peanut butter off for a while making it more likely that they will trigger the trap. Worked much much better.

Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.

I think I might have some wires crossed in my brain. Just the other day I was trying to catch a little mouse I scared out of my garage. Long story short, I accidentally killed him when I tried to move the big trash can off of him. I felt like crap for days.

Will diatomaceaous earth help with my hyperempathic disorder?

"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin

I think I might have some wires crossed in my brain. Just the other day I was trying to catch a little mouse I scared out of my garage. Long story short, I accidentally killed him when I tried to move the big trash can off of him. I felt like crap for days.

Will diatomaceaous earth help with my hyperempathic disorder?

Long answer: Absolutely
Short answer: Yes

Really long answer: Speaking of cruelty to the meeses, you ever seen a cat kill it's prey? I mean they don't kill, they torture. There is no swift bite to the neck there's a I'm going to whack you over here to the other side of the room, then pounce over there and whack you back like I'm playing catch with myself.

My cat catches rodents, but he doesn't kill them. He's brought me many a live mole from the yard.

Weirdly, my pitbull once ate a mouse.

Amstaffs will eat anything, including roofing nails. Sigh.

So, yeah, domestic cats seem to love making household "contributions". My cats don't go out but when I was a kid one of the cats we had was quite the hunter and we had to race to the kitchen's patio door early in the morning to ensure no visible "offerings" were left there. For some reason my mom use to freak out seeing half dead mice, birds, moles and other critters barely recognizable lined up outside her kitchen... Weird eh?

Still no hypothesis on how DE could be beneficial for human consumption. Oh well, the door's open so...

Common sense is like deodorant...The people who need it most never use it.
~Unknown
If I'm going to be an ass, might as well be a smart one.
~Me

Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977

Posts

12,596

October 10th, 2013, 02:37 AM

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I think I might have some wires crossed in my brain. Just the other day I was trying to catch a little mouse I scared out of my garage. Long story short, I accidentally killed him when I tried to move the big trash can off of him. I felt like crap for days.

Will diatomaceaous earth help with my hyperempathic disorder?

Try going to group sessions at "Mouse Killers Anonymous"......and best of luck to you!

Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977

Posts

12,596

October 10th, 2013, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by Lazy Jester

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

My cat catches rodents, but he doesn't kill them. He's brought me many a live mole from the yard.

Weirdly, my pitbull once ate a mouse.

Amstaffs will eat anything, including roofing nails. Sigh.

So, yeah, domestic cats seem to love making household "contributions". My cats don't go out but when I was a kid one of the cats we had was quite the hunter and we had to race to the kitchen's patio door early in the morning to ensure no visible "offerings" were left there. For some reason my mom use to freak out seeing half dead mice, birds, moles and other critters barely recognizable lined up outside her kitchen... Weird eh?

Still no hypothesis on how DE could be beneficial for human consumption. Oh well, the door's open so...

[QUOTE=ALM2study8;276356]Diatomaceous earth, food grade, is this really so good , or dangerous ? My doctor, and all the pharmacists I've talked to say, " DO NOT EAT Diatomaceous earth, you will harm yourself. " All the web says it cures artheritis, clogged arteries, high blood-pressure, high cholesteral, intestinal problems, and any parasites ( internal or external ). It is approved for animals, and is the anti-caking agent in flour, plus annihilating meal worms; therefore, we are already eating it. [LEFT]" Food grade diatomaceous earth is EPA approved to be mixed with grains to control mealworms and other pests and has been exempted from tolerance requirements as an inert, inactive ingredient in chemical pesticides. Diatomaceous earth is EPA approved against indoor and outdoor crawling insects. Diatomaceous earth is USDA approved as an anti-caking agent for flour and animal feed. Diatomaceous earth is FDA approved for internal and external use and has a rating of Food Chemical Codex Grade. ", is the common web description, adding humans should consume a spoonful a day. IN REALITY, the stuff is dangerous to handle without gloves ( due to dehidration ), is dangerous to inhale when handling, and I suspect caused me to get a sore throat and diarrhea ( I did mix it with pleanty of water ). The question is, " WHAT COULD GO WRONG ? " ( side effects ) of ingesting diatoms. I do feel it helped my back-aches, but this could be a coincidence. Furthermore, I wonder if mixing Diatomaceous earth with nopalea cactus could be a wonder drug ? ...

Of course doctors would rather you pay for their chemicals.
I've seen it kill insects in minutes, yes with my own eyes.
I've seen it kill fleas and ticks and prevent there return when doghouse was dusted for my dogs, and I live in the woods.
I've eaten it myself, in moderation twice weekly and noticed improvements all around...hair nails joints muscle recovery ( I play pro beach volleyball)
For all you self assumed scientists out there ( I have read a significant amount of your related threads) obviously I have no scientific research that it is the d earth itself that gives these benefits as far as human consumption but even if it only cleans similar to fiber supplements, which are much more expensive, then one would absorb more efficiently the nutrients taken internally. This could also explain the stated benefits.
As far as the posts related to DOMs and micro tears ( I am a personal trainer) well same as above. If your digesting better than you will heal faster because of the better absorption of nutrients as well as an uninterrupted sleep pattern which is critical to muscle repair.

Every post where something good is reported it's either a coincidence or there's some smartass reply. So wait if something bad happens..like a sore throat and diarrhea... That can't be coincidence nope..strange

Every post where something good is reported it's either a coincidence or there's some smartass reply. So wait if something bad happens..like a sore throat and diarrhea... That can't be coincidence nope..strange

I had a sore throat, and so I started dabbing my forehead with cheese - once in the morning and once before bed.
Now, maybe this is a coincidence, but within days my sore throat was gone!

And so I tried it again, only this time was because my knee was sore.
tbh, I didn't need to dab my forehead with cheese more than once!
Within hours my knee felt much better!

Are both cures a coincidence??
I don't think so!!

It is pretty clear to me that dabbing your forehead with cheese will cure most common ailments.

using it once a month a small amount iwould say if you feel better why not... but really small amount because you get this already in with other food products as said... I think it wont be realy good for your kidneys using to much...

I used to use peanut butter on mouse traps because the mice were pulling the cheese chunks off and escaping without triggering the trap, but they have to sit there and lick he peanut butter off for a while making it more likely that they will trigger the trap. Worked much much better.

If they are outside, bait them with poison. Inside the house use sticky traps. They like to run along walls and if there are more than one mouse they play follow the leader. I once caught 4 mice on one sticky trap, then you just dump the mice and trap, no muss and no fuss.

using it once a month a small amount iwould say if you feel better why not... but really small amount because you get this already in with other food products as said... I think it wont be realy good for your kidneys using to much...

It's not going to get anywhere near your kidneys. It's high surface area silica. Almost completely insoluble. Whatever it does, if anything, will be due to its surface properties and will take place in the digestive tract. It may - or may not- adsorb some substances that would otherwise enter the circulation but it will not cross into the circulation itself.

And of course being sharp, it may irritate the lining of the gut, causing bleeding or diarrhoea or other horrible effects.

Me, I prefer to eat food, rather than crank supplements of unproven value.

Oh I got it..doesn't make it any less ignorant to respond with something that adds more confusion to a subject so many already have gotten completely wrong. It's just filler. And how many deaths still occur after controlled trials show a substance to be safe. When there's a natural substance that can replace an unnatural one why not try it. Trial and error and the consequences of error are far less severe than what's on the mainstream market.

And cute little panda bear..sorry to disappoint but apparently you failed to read my earlier post before replying with your lame response..I'm trying to provide insight on a subject I have had personal experience with. It's obvious you have never tried it and never will and will also never provide any valid reasons to not try d earth.

And cute little panda bear..sorry to disappoint but apparently you failed to read my earlier post before replying with your lame response..I'm trying to provide insight on a subject I have had personal experience with. It's obvious you have never tried it and never will and will also never provide any valid reasons to not try d earth.

I've never tried cocaine so does that mean I can never give any valid reasons not to?

I love it when people can't reply with anything rational...great imagery...some nerd sitting at his computer with nothing better to do than post some ignorant reply in between whackit sessions....lmao

On the contrary, RedPanda has told you a nice parable, to illustrate the dangers of the classic error of post hoc ergo propter hoc. I'm surprised you don't seem to recognise this. Anecdotal evidence is always at risk of it, especially when it comes from people with a wish to believe in something. Hence the need for controlled trials in medicine.

And cute little panda bear..sorry to disappoint but apparently you failed to read my earlier post before replying with your lame response..I'm trying to provide insight on a subject I have had personal experience with. It's obvious you have never tried it and never will and will also never provide any valid reasons to not try d earth.

I've never tried cocaine so does that mean I can never give any valid reasons not to?

There's plenty of reasons to not try cocaine but I couldn't give you any to not try coca leaves in their natural form before they are stomped down into a harsh chemical by child slaves

And cute little panda bear..sorry to disappoint but apparently you failed to read my earlier post before replying with your lame response..I'm trying to provide insight on a subject I have had personal experience with. It's obvious you have never tried it and never will and will also never provide any valid reasons to not try d earth.

I've never tried cocaine so does that mean I can never give any valid reasons not to?

There's plenty of reasons to not try cocaine but I couldn't give you any to not try coca leaves in their natural form before they are stomped down into a harsh chemical by child slaves

so you are able to think of valid reasons to not use cocaine even though you have never tried it, but a person has to have tried DE in order to give valid reasons not to use that. You do not practice logic.

Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.

I'm trying to provide insight on a subject I have had personal experience with.

What this thread does not need is yet more meaningless personal anecdotes. This is a science forum. The few scientific results that have been cited show inconclusive evidence for the effectiveness in animal treatment.

Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore

And cute little panda bear..sorry to disappoint but apparently you failed to read my earlier post before replying with your lame response..I'm trying to provide insight on a subject I have had personal experience with. It's obvious you have never tried it and never will and will also never provide any valid reasons to not try d earth.

I've never tried cocaine so does that mean I can never give any valid reasons not to?

There's plenty of reasons to not try cocaine but I couldn't give you any to not try coca leaves in their natural form before they are stomped down into a harsh chemical by child slaves

so you are able to think of valid reasons to not use cocaine even though you have never tried it, but a person has to have tried DE in order to give valid reasons not to use that. You do not practice logic.

That's not what I meant buddy. I meant if he's not going to provide any insight for or against than he should not be posting mundane responses

"Will also never provide any valid reasons to not try" last part of last sentence..I never said he had to try it..at least provide valid reasons not to..now your arguing about something I didn't even say

And cute little panda bear..sorry to disappoint but apparently you failed to read my earlier post before replying with your lame response..I'm trying to provide insight on a subject I have had personal experience with. It's obvious you have never tried it and never will and will also never provide any valid reasons to not try d earth.

I've never tried cocaine so does that mean I can never give any valid reasons not to?

There's plenty of reasons to not try cocaine but I couldn't give you any to not try coca leaves in their natural form before they are stomped down into a harsh chemical by child slaves

so you are able to think of valid reasons to not use cocaine even though you have never tried it, but a person has to have tried DE in order to give valid reasons not to use that. You do not practice logic.

That's not what I meant buddy. I meant if he's not going to provide any insight for or against than he should not be posting mundane responses

Your responses have been nothing but criticisms of other people's responses. How about YOU give some insight rather than just posting mundane empty criticisms of other people's posting style.

Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.

I'm trying to provide insight on a subject I have had personal experience with.

What this thread does not need is yet more meaningless personal anecdotes. This is a science forum. The few scientific results that have been cited show inconclusive evidence for the effectiveness in animal treatment.

The science is inconclusive..exactly why the only thing to post is personal experience with it..and that's only for consumption with regards to health benefits..it has been shown to be a great de wormer and also to be a great natural insecticide

I'm trying to provide insight on a subject I have had personal experience with.

What this thread does not need is yet more meaningless personal anecdotes. This is a science forum. The few scientific results that have been cited show inconclusive evidence for the effectiveness in animal treatment.

The science is inconclusive..exactly why the only thing to post is personal experience with it..and that's only for consumption with regards to health benefits..it has been shown to be a great de wormer and also to be a great natural insecticide

And is posting about bad outcomes off limits? One does not have to have personal experience to know what the properties of a particular substance can do to the inside your body. An education in biology can give you that information. And education is the best experience.

Not true man all I did with my first post was reiterate how well it works on insects and then how it has worked for me and why it may help with recovery time as an athlete. I train on average four hour a day and it has definitely helped . I don't think the d earth itself but just that it cleaned me out which improved my digestion of the foods I take in..that s all I wanted to say...Then I was attacked first by strange then by panda. (Response for seagypsy)

Not true man all I did with my first post was reiterate how well it works on insects and then how it has worked for me and why it may help with recovery time as an athlete. I train on average four hour a day and it has definitely helped . I don't think the d earth itself but just that it cleaned me out which improved my digestion of the foods I take in..that s all I wanted to say...Then I was attacked first by strange then by panda

I couldn't tell what was said in your first post. it looked like a quote to start but you didn't put closing quote brackets anywhere so I didn't know what was yours and what was the quote.

And you were hardly attacked. If you feel those two attacked you, and they are two of the gentlest people on the forum, best not venture into any other forum where the real hounds of fury tend to prowl. Maybe if you take some more DE though your skin will toughen up and you can handle it. You can't be a tenderfoot on a science forum.

Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.

Then I was attacked first by strange then by panda. (Response for seagypsy)

I didn't attack you.

I pointed out that you appeared to have answered your own question. Agreed with you that coincidence might be an important factor. And gave the only possible response to a sentence containing the phrase "wonder drug" (i.e. laugh at it, unless the wonder drug in question is aspirin, perhaps).

Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore

Not true man all I did with my first post was reiterate how well it works on insects and then how it has worked for me and why it may help with recovery time as an athlete. I train on average four hour a day and it has definitely helped . I don't think the d earth itself but just that it cleaned me out which improved my digestion of the foods I take in..that s all I wanted to say...Then I was attacked first by strange then by panda [/I couldn't tell what was said in your first post. it looked like a quote to start but you didn't put closing quote brackets anywhere so I didn't know what was yours and what was the quote.And you were hardly attacked. If you feel those two attacked you, and they are two of the gentlest people on the forum, best not venture into any other forum where the real hounds of fury tend to prowl. Maybe if you take some more DE though your skin will toughen up and you can handle it. You can't be a tenderfoot on a science forum.

Lol it's not hurting me at all and as far as tenderfoot... I play pro beach vball..def wouldn't want my feet any tougher..look all I wanted to say was it def works as insecticide and dewormer I have had a few dogs and I know a few dodo friends with horse and cattle. And it works for all that. As far as human consumption after I had it for a few weeks I def felt it worked as a digestive tract cleanser and I felt like I digested my food better and had more energy at tournaments. I'm not saying it has any special powers or gives you anything or you digest the silica or anything like that...just felt like it cleaned me out. And I'm sure that if you take too much it can clog you up like taking too much fiber supplement. Like anything else..take in moderation...same with cocaine lmao...it's been a fun morning.

Then I was attacked first by strange then by panda. (Response for seagypsy)

I didn't attack you. I pointed out that you appeared to have answered your own question. Agreed with you that coincidence might be an important factor. And gave the only possible response to a sentence containing the phrase "wonder drug" (i.e. laugh at it, unless the wonder drug in question is aspirin, perhaps).

I didn't use wonder drug? Is that what all this was about? I don't know maybe i typed in the middle of the thread I was replying too? All I was trying to say is what I just posted to sg